I was watching a debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins and it seems to me that Atkins fully believes that he himself is not biased or has presuppositions of his own. Such s evident in his opening remarks, (which was merely a tirade of slanderous accusations, about being ignorant / lazy etc).

I pondered this and I realised that many evolutionists / atheists seem to think the same, in that they are completely unbiased with no prejudice of any kind. I am wondering on what basis can this belief be maintained, since its very basic understanding which comprehends that ALL people have their own personal bias and presuppositions. To have no bias is to claim one must be infallible which is impossible, this then leads to the incredulity of the claims that an evolutionist / atheist has no bias towards their own worldview.

(Yes I am sure not all evolutionists / atheists are like this, however it does seem to be the case with the more outspoken ones, Dawkins / Atkins etc.)

Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse stated: “People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief". (Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design, p. 335)

That's how indoctrination works. When you are constantly assailed with affirmation of your worldview by every form of media, when affirmation of that worldview is an unspoken assumption in everything you are presented, it becomes a "self-evident' truth that has no more bias than believing that the sky is blue, and only "whackos" would even think to question it. I encountered that a lot in school, where people could not even conceive of science not equating to evolution, and vice versa.

That's how indoctrination works. When you are constantly assailed with affirmation of your worldview by every form of media, when affirmation of that worldview is an unspoken assumption in everything you are presented, it becomes a "self-evident' truth that has no more bias than believing that the sky is blue, and only "whackos" would even think to question it. I encountered that a lot in school, where people could not even conceive of science not equating to evolution, and vice versa.

I agree, though that still doesn't explain why many believe they are intellectually superior to those who believe in creation. Perhaps it is due to self-reinforcement as to personally "spur" on ones own belief as to make it untouchable, (the reasons for doing so would be purely emotional).

Something for the atheist to consider, if I were to become an atheist, does that mean that somehow I magically grow more brain cells and get smarter? The logical answer we are looking for here is no. Now how does belief in atheism ensures that that person is an intellectual? Does this mean that worldviews are linked to the IQ of a person?

I agree, though that still doesn't explain why many believe they are intellectually superior to those who believe in creation. Perhaps it is due to self-reinforcement as to personally "spur" on ones own belief as to make it untouchable, (the reasons for doing so would be purely emotional).

Something for the atheist to consider, if I were to become an atheist, does that mean that somehow I magically grow more brain cells and get smarter? The logical answer we are looking for here is no. Now how does belief in atheism ensures that that person is an intellectual? Does this mean that worldviews are linked to the IQ of a person?

I agree. But we are never going to break that attitude in them...at least not most of them. I always approach the subject with the hope that some uninformed person or honest searcher will read the truth and be fascinated with it. Once that is accomplished then such a convert to creationism usally only gets stronger from that point on.

I agree. But we are never going to break that attitude in them...at least not most of them. I always approach the subject with the hope that some uninformed person or honest searcher will read the truth and be fascinated with it. Once that is accomplished then such a convert to creationism usally only gets stronger from that point on.

Yes I agree the attitude will not break in most. However I am more interested in its origin and why such a thing is believed wholeheartedly even when you consider it logically you find that it is an irrational claim, (as has been demonstrated). Furthermore I would posit that any who claim as such cannot critically analyse their own ideas / assumptions made, (yes this includes Dawkins / Atkins etc), in that as I have demonstrated it is an irrational claim.. (Actually I had an interesting conversation with one of my lecturers about this over a year ago, he is an evolutionist however realised that many of his colleagues were making unjustified claims which were not fully supported by the evidence, or which the evidence left doubt on).

Its either this lack of critical thinking or there is some other work at play which I hope an atheist person can bring to light. (However if it is the lack of critical thinking then its ironic since the claims here are about the supposed atheist intellectual superiority).

Perhaps there is something that makes these irrational claims logical, if so can an atheist please illuminate this hidden factor please.

I think your comments are quite unfair. Their are many religious leaders and thinkers who I have a great respect for. For Example

Pope Benedict XVI

“Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from?”If the Pope can see the value of evolution why are so many on this site dogmatically opposed? Isn't that bias? And its not just the current Pope - back in 1953 Pope Pius XII wrote

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God"

Nor is it just Christian religion. Dalai Lama“My confidence in venturing in science lies in my belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”If the Dalai Lama can show such humility, why cannot the Creationists on this site concede that their cherished Holy Bible may not be inerrant.

Kenneth Miller, devout Catholic and hero of the Dover trial

"The issue of God is an issue on which reasonable people may differ, but I certainly think that it's an over-statement of our scientific knowledge and understanding to argue that science in general, or evolutionary biology in particular, proves in any way that there is no God."I agree. Even Richard Dawkins when writing about his own beliefs said that on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 would be total dogmatic belief in God and 7 would be total disbelief - he rated himself a 6.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest and philosopher who wrote

"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."

Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher

“Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”On the scientific side, the great Zoologist, writer and atheist Stephen Jay Gould wrote

"Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us."

And finally the great scientist Albert Einstein, whose religious views are often contested wrote:"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees”This site is supposed to be about a civilized debate on Evolution and Creationism. Lets stick to the debate and quit the personal attacks.

I think your comments are quite unfair. Their are many religious leaders and thinkers who I have a great respect for. For Example

Pope Benedict XVI

“Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from?”If the Pope can see the value of evolution why are so many on this site dogmatically opposed? Isn't that bias? And its not just the current Pope - back in 1953 Pope Pius XII wrote

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God"

Nor is it just Christian religion. Dalai Lama“My confidence in venturing in science lies in my belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”If the Dalai Lama can show such humility, why cannot the Creationists on this site concede that their cherished Holy Bible may not be inerrant.

Kenneth Miller, devout Catholic and hero of the Dover trial

"The issue of God is an issue on which reasonable people may differ, but I certainly think that it's an over-statement of our scientific knowledge and understanding to argue that science in general, or evolutionary biology in particular, proves in any way that there is no God."I agree. Even Richard Dawkins when writing about his own beliefs said that on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 would be total dogmatic belief in God and 7 would be total disbelief - he rated himself a 6.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest and philosopher who wrote

"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."

Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher

“Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”On the scientific side, the great Zoologist, writer and atheist Stephen Jay Gould wrote

"Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us."

And finally the great scientist Albert Einstein, whose religious views are often contested wrote:"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees”This site is supposed to be about a civilized debate on Evolution and Creationism. Lets stick to the debate and quit the personal attacks.

Maybe you respect them but at bottom line, we only respect God's Word. It is His Word that is final and not that of the Pope, Dalai Lama, nor any other religious leader. The truth about origins is not determined by a consensus of human opinion. The Lord told us what He did and how long He took in doing it. We see no biblical nor scientific reason to abandon what He told us.

Maybe you respect them but at bottom line, we only respect God's Word. It is His Word that is final and not that of the Pope, Dalai Lama, nor any other religious leader. The truth about origins is not determined by a consensus of human opinion. The Lord told us what He did and how long He took in doing it. We see no biblical nor scientific reason to abandon what He told us.

So do you believe that your interpretation of God's Word is intellectually superior to that of the Pope and the Dalai Lama?

So do you believe that your interpretation of God's Word is intellectually superior to that of the Pope and the Dalai Lama?

Was that stated?

Please address my initial point

Why is it that as a norm the atheist community claims themselves more intellectually superior as well as intellectually honest / unbiased to all others who do not believe in the same worldview as them?

Is it a need for continual positive reinforcement, (since many of their claims defy logic hence a booster of faith may be required from time to time)?Is it that they genuinely claim that a person's worldview is linked to their IQ (yet what happens when one changes their opinion?)?Is it merely an attempt at an ad hominem attack en masse?Is it because of low self esteem, (same logic as bullies bully people due to self esteem issues)?Is it due to claims being made by others before them, (someone reads Dawkins book, and then emulates his hostility)?Is it due to a flaw in their logical processes (which would render their claims ironic)?

I am merely asking you to provide some light on this innuendo since I'd rather not assume what the reason is

Why is it that as a norm the atheist community claims themselves more intellectually superior as well as intellectually honest / unbiased to all others who do not believe in the same worldview as them?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think of myself as more intellectually superior to believers. In fact I have given you a list of believers who I respect and consider intellectually superior to myself. I don't necessarily believe all their arguments - but if that was the criteria - where does it leave you?As for Peter Atkins, notice that the video clip at the start of this thread was labelled "Atheist Peter Atkins loses debate to much wiser Christian theist".Now I don't know who gave the clip that title. If it was Atkins himself it would indicate humbleness on his part worthy of JC himself. If it was a theist it would indicate the very claim to intellectual superiority that you are accusing the atheists of.And now could you answer my question - because it goes to the heart of just who is claiming intellectual superiority. Do you claim that your interpretation of the Word of God is superior to two Popes, renowned Christian philosophers de Jardin and Dobshansky, Evolutionary and Christian Kenneth Miller, and the Dalai Lama?

So do you believe that your interpretation of God's Word is intellectually superior to that of the Pope and the Dalai Lama?

Spiritually superior.They are in error.

The Word of God is superior to all human determination of such matters. And in the end of things and after all considerations the evidence available (as far as origins) will reveal the truthfulness and veracity of His Word. To that we are very confidant; so much so that we have no hesitation to stand against the entire Darwinian edifice/establishment and await it's inevitable downfall with a smile.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think of myself as more intellectually superior to believers. In fact I have given you a list of believers who I respect and consider intellectually superior to myself. I don't necessarily believe all their arguments - but if that was the criteria - where does it leave you?As for Peter Atkins, notice that the video clip at the start of this thread was labelled "Atheist Peter Atkins loses debate to much wiser Christian theist".Now I don't know who gave the clip that title. If it was Atkins himself it would indicate humbleness on his part worthy of JC himself. If it was a theist it would indicate the very claim to intellectual superiority that you are accusing the atheists of.And now could you answer my question - because it goes to the heart of just who is claiming intellectual superiority. Do you claim that your interpretation of the Word of God is superior to two Popes, renowned Christian philosophers de Jardin and Dobshansky, Evolutionary and Christian Kenneth Miller, and the Dalai Lama?

No problem thanks for the honest answer, though if you could postulate as to the origin or reason for the misleading claims perpetuated by the likes of Atkins / Dawkins / Dennet etc what reason could you claim? (Yes I state such as misleading since a person's worldview has nothing to do with their IQ or processes of logic, it is merely what that person has chosen to believe).

Furthermore would the fanbois of these people be acting the same way out of emulation of their idol or is it something much more serious than that.

Considering that I viewed myself once as a Christian before, and a bad one at that since I rarely read the Bible myself outside of church. I would have to assume that these other people would have a better interpretation. However your assumption here assumes that these people all have the same interpretation, the fact is that all people have different interpretations on absolutely everything, (this is why there are no moral absolutes within atheism / naturalism / evolutionary worldviews, since nothing can be agreed upon in the subjective sense), therefore when an interpretation is given it must be first "taken with a grain of salt" and critically analyzed to best discern whether the interpretation is a good one or not. However who is to say that my own interpretation of someone elses interpretation is correct. Hence all people should approach everything with a sense of modesty in that we cannot be absolutely sure of our own interpretations... Such can also be said of our own processes of logic since something being "logical" is an arbitrary claim perpetuated on the basis of how something fits within that person's current knowledge and worldview, there is no justification that we have all the facts relating to the claim being said hence to claim something is logical is in most cases premature.

Yet there are some things that can be stated with conviction which are based on truth and deductive logic of known infallible claims, (laws of reality pertain as some of these).

These differences in interpretation are what lead to the different denominations within all the Religions. However such doesn't demonstrate a problem with the Religion itself, it merely demonstrates that people have different processes, standards and methods of inference in which they view the world and make judgements.

I pondered this and I realised that many evolutionists / atheists seem to think the same, in that they are completely unbiased with no prejudice of any kind. I am wondering on what basis can this belief be maintained, since its very basic understanding which comprehends that ALL people have their own personal bias and presuppositions. To have no bias is to claim one must be infallible which is impossible, this then leads to the incredulity of the claims that an evolutionist / atheist has no bias towards their own worldview.

I think that one contributing factor is that the majority of proponents on both sides of the argument are ill-informed. Some of the replies from creationists and evolutionists show general lack of knowledge of the subject. This can create a sense of superiority from evolutionists that I'm sure we as creationists also have when we see how biased and ill-informed most evolutionists are.

if you could postulate as to the origin or reason for the misleading claims perpetuated by the likes of Atkins / Dawkins / Dennet etc what reason could you claim?

I have never heard of Atkins before and the two hour debate on the introductory video looked extremely tedious. Dennet I have read, and I find him ponderous, and in their rather public disputes, I would side with Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a real polymath who would have been well justified in considering himself the intellectual superior of many - except that he was far too humble a man to have made such a claim. As for Dawkins, I think he is a brilliant writer who has convinced many people of the truth of evolution. As I pointed out elsewhere, he places himself a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 would be an absolute believer like Calypsis4 and 7 would be the equivalent atheist. While I am less enamoured of The God Delusion, one of Dawkins strengths is that he endured the same compulsory religious indocrination in the British school system that I endured. (Fascinating that the US which has the Constitutional prohibition on religious teaching in public schools is a much more religious society than Britain. Be careful what you wish for!) As a result he actually knows his Bible. So I will answer your question if you could point out exactly what misleading claim you are accusing Dawkins of.

I have never heard of Atkins before and the two hour debate on the introductory video looked extremely tedious. Dennet I have read, and I find him ponderous, and in their rather public disputes, I would side with Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a real polymath who would have been well justified in considering himself the intellectual superior of many - except that he was far too humble a man to have made such a claim. As for Dawkins, I think he is a brilliant writer who has convinced many people of the truth of evolution. As I pointed out elsewhere, he places himself a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 would be an absolute believer like Calypsis4 and 7 would be the equivalent atheist. While I am less enamoured of The God Delusion, one of Dawkins strengths is that he endured the same compulsory religious indocrination in the British school system that I endured. (Fascinating that the US which has the Constitutional prohibition on religious teaching in public schools is a much more religious society than Britain. Be careful what you wish for!) As a result he actually knows his Bible. So I will answer your question if you could point out exactly what misleading claim you are accusing Dawkins of.

Not one person has the right to claim themselves smarter or better than a group of people of whom you haven't met every single one. To claim such is naive since in my 26 years of life I have realised that no matter how good you become there is ALWAYS someone better in some respect in some way or another. Keep in mind that as I said a person's belief doesn't reflect on their IQ or rationality therefore the possibility exists that there are Creationists that are deemed to exceed Dawkins, Atkins etc in many orders of magnitude Therefore I urge you to shy away from such fallacious thinking.

A generalisation of the claims is in the OP, (I had thought you had read it before replying here). Furthermore if you had watched the video (whether you know of Atkins or not is entirely irrelevant), you can see the absolute ignorance of his claims about the intellectual lazyness of people who believe in a God, (he then goes on to state that nothing exists, which in my view is not what a self-claimed "intellectual giant" would claim if his "intellectual" status was important to him). However I highly doubt that you at the age of 63 would be totally new to this and have never heard such things, (in other words playing dumb won't work here).

If you require specific examples then here are some

Daniel Dennet claims atheists as "Brights". Not only is this stating that atheists as a collective whole are smarter than the non-atheist, (with the term bright referring to smart), additionally this also implies non-atheists are "Dulls" or in another antonym of the use of bright would be to call them the "Dumbs".

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that"- Richard Dawkins

Here is a very small look at Dawkins ad hominem attacks, only within the book "The God Delusion", (the article also cites many other logical fallacies of which Dawkins commits). This says nothing on all the claims he has made in other books, media appearances and debates.

. Ad hominem (personal attack): Personal ridicule is also out of order. Nevertheless Dawkins shamelessly stigmatizes both individuals and organizations for their personal and religious convictions. Several eminent scientists who have been open about their traditional Christian beliefs are ridiculed as “a subject of amused bafflement to their peers in the academic community” (p. 125). In the same vein, Moody Bible Institute is mocked as the “ro2ck bottom” in the “hierarchy of American universities;” Wheaton College is “a little bit higher on the scale, but still the Alma Mater of Billy Graham” (p. 121). James Dobson is accused of “indoctrination” as the “founder of today’s infamous ‘Focus on the Family’ movement” (p. 206). From a logical perspective, the expression of such personal biases is completely inappropriate. Bigotry does not constitute logical argument or scientific evidence. Behind these personal attacks and bigotry lies Dawkins’ repeated accusation that Christianity is a malignant and “corrosive force” which is fatal to the scientific enterprise (Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference: Feb., 2002; Posted: TED Archive: April, 2007).

In an essay entitled “Viruses of the Mind” (Free Inquiry, 1993), Dawkins argued that religion is an “accident of birth” and a mental “virus.” Religious beliefs are “mind-parasites” which breed upon “mystery.” According to Dawkins, the religious virus is adverse to reason and evidence. In the God Delusion Dawkins applies this theme to children. Dawkins declares that religion is the greatest danger facing children. “Christianity,” he asserts, “just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioning faith is a virtue. “You don’t have to make the case for what you believe,” he says (p. 346; cf. pp. 323, 347, 379). Apart from isolated personal attacks like those mentioned above, Dawkins presents no serious evidence or justification for that accusation. His accusation is categorically false. His own university was established as a Christian institution for the sake of pursuing the truth. The motto of Oxford is Dominus illuminatio mea: “The Lord is my light.” The Natural History Museum, where Dawkins has debated, and most of the oldest colleges and universities in the world were established by Christians. Harvard, the oldest and most revered of American schools, bears the motto: “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” (“Truth for Christ and the Church”) on the official seal. Students today may be surprised to learn that Harvard was originally established to train Christian ministers and that one of the founding “precepts” in 1646 was the belief that Jesus Christ is “the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” Typical of other American universities is Duke in Durham, North Carolina. Founded in 1924, there is a plaque in the center of the campus which states: “The aims of Duke University are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion set forth in the teachings and character of Jesus Christ, the son of God.” It’s not surprising. Scripture exhorts Christians: “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). Dawkins’ ad hominems even extend to an astonishing assault upon the character of God as (among other things): “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak” (p. 51). From a logical perspective, even if Dawkins’ outrageous comments were somehow true, it still wouldn’t address the issue of God’s existence."

Only a cursory look at Dawkins.net will provide you with ample amounts of derogatory, baseless attacks, by fanbois of Dawkins of which you can sate your requirement for evidence.

Richard Dawkins states: "What is remarkable is the polar opposition between the religiosity of the American public at large and the atheism of the intellectual elite."

So in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that because of the religious belief of its citizens, the United States appears to the rest of the world "like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0250.htm

Here is a look at what it actually means for someone to resort to namecalling and such devices. It is merely an instruction in logical fallacies of which (from that other site), you now know Dawkins refers to consistently.

Furthermore I'd like to point out your logical inconsistency in claiming evolution as truth, since from my studies in Biology we were taught that in science most things cannot be claimed to be true since there is the possibility of future evidence to falsify the initial claim... how ironic it was that the next semester we were taught evolution and like you evolution was claimed to be truth....Hmmm and people wonder why I believe it to be absent of any form of scientific investigation.

As I stated before how can we trust our own interpretation of events furthermore how can something deemed "logical" let alone actually true?

Now can you please give an atheist's insight as to why such claims are being made by the head honchos of the New Atheist movement as well as their devoted, (...faithful...) fanbois.

In show buisness there is a famoust quip that says, "It is not a good idea to believe one's own PR."

We can think--which by definition means; given a cause what the most likely effect will be--given an effect what the most probable cause was. Lawyers call this the submitting an idea to the bar of reason. Not only can we think, but we can think about our thinking. We can even think about thinking about our thinking. Many do not realize that they can do such. Multi level thinking gives us a certainain amount of objectivity about our reasoning and thinking ability--it allows us to question our conclusions.

Benjamin Franklin said, convinced against our will of the same opinion still (that idea most likely is inforce in the overly dogmatic ideology of many evos).Thomas Jefferson said we were all created equals. If this is the case, most conflict is caused by equals creating and holding rigidly opposing views ("You can't make me believe what I don-t want to--even if logci and the facts indicate otherwise").

I tend to think that most rigid views have to do with the fact that we can easily "create" them. What we create we tend to adore! Our created dea becomes our "truth." After considerable thought, I suspect that the idea of "absolute truth" conflicts with the concept of creativity (especially when ideas are rigidly held and supported by alleged evidence).

In high school we were taught a version of the Scientific Premise; "The true scientist must hold any premise with a 'light' hand. Should any "fact" contradic his original premise,he must easily let the orginal premise go (like a dandeion disperses its seeds with a gust of wind).People that think they are always "right' are very scary. Evos, Darwin, Hitler, Marx, and Stalin come to mind. Scary!

However I highly doubt that you at the age of 63 would be totally new to this and have never heard such things, (in other words playing dumb won't work here).

Now can you please give an atheist's insight as to why such claims are being made by the head honchos of the New Atheist movement as well as their devoted, (...faithful...) fanbois.

Amazing - your complaint is about insults from atheists and yet your whole post is littered with insults like the word fanbois and the references to my age and playing dumb. Atheists are alleged to make themselves out to be intellectually superior and yet the label on the video you post claims the non atheist is "much wiser". Calypsis makes himself out to "spiritually superior" to the Pope and the Dalai Lama. Are you sure that you have the right target?

I have openly admitted that I consider a number of prominent religious leaders and philosophers to be intellectually superior to me. Could you admit the possibility that an atheist could be intellectually superior to you?

Perhaps you should read Matthew 7 : 5

I don't care about Dennet and I truly have never heard of Peter Atkins or William Craig before. I don't like Dennet's books and I think his concept of "brights" is as intellectually arrogant as Calypsis4's claims.

On the other hand, Dawkins book The God Delusion contains a lot of hard fact to support his opinions. He supports his claims of an irreligious elite with statistics of religious belief among people with different levels of schooling. He supports his claim that Jehovah is a control freak with several stories from the Old Testament. In all the criticism of Dawkins, I have yet to see anyone point out an error in his statistics or in his biblical allusions. Arrogant yes - deliberately offensive - probably in factual error - no.

However Dawkins real strength is a as a Biologist.His books on evolution are full of facts. Again I have never seen anyone point out a truly factual error. Where there are differences of opinion, he is usually civil in pointing them out - for example his discussion on Stephen Jay Gould's "Spandrel" theory. He also points out that belief in evolution does not preclude religious belief. He praises Kenneth Miller, who is a devout Catholic and also prominent in the field of evolution. In previous posts I have given many other examples of people who accept both religion and evolution.

As for your last comment it comes back to an area where I do have professional knowledge. I am a mining engineer by profession, and a geologisty by hobby. I have been involved in the discovery and development of a number of new mines around the world. When JB Haldane was asked what would disprove evolution - he responded "Rabbits in the pre-cambrian". No such anomolous fossils have ever been found. Attempts to disprove this such as John Woodmaropes list of 200 anomolous fossils are pathetic. You only have to look at a complex coal mine, such as Mt Owen in the Hunter Valley with its 37 complex seams to realise that Creationist attempts to cram geology into 6000 years of creation are very amateur. Mining and oil companies employ geologists and paleontologists because the science works. It finds oil reserves and mineral deposits. Companies that used Creation Science or ignored fossils and geological timescales because the logic is somehow "circular" would soon go broke. It is no accident that the many of the founders of geological science such as William Smith were practicing engineers. Evolution could be easily disproven if the evidence was there. It isn't.

. Keep in mind that as I said a person's belief doesn't reflect on their IQ or rationality therefore the possibility exists that there are Creationists that are deemed to exceed Dawkins, Atkins etc in many orders of magnitude

The writer I most respect is Stephen Jay Gould. Yes, despite a Jewish upbringing he was an atheist and a strong proponent of evolution. But he had many other interests. Just try reading his seven page essay at http://www.stephenja...use-ussher.html It is about Archbishop James Ussher, who in 1607 calculated that the world had been created at noon on October 23rd 4004 BC. Gould gives a mostly sympathetic and in places admiring portrait of the Archbishop - with some criticism of his intolerance for Catholics. He goes into the calculation in some detail and explains the problems Ussher faced and how he overcame them. He has also tracked down that the time of 9 am on October 26th is not what Ussher calculated and its common acceptance today is the result of repeated copying of an erroneous text. He is frank in explaining his initial predjudices and leaves himself open to malicious selective quoting. Gould's idea of Non Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA) for the scientific and religious worlds is also one I admire and believe shows great wisdom. Although Gould had occasional hissy fits when Creationists quoted him out of context in order to suggest he had abandoned Darwinism, he reserved his greatest ire and contempt for Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins. The former as a philosopher ponderously trying to explain biology and the latter for his emphasis on the gene. I would believe your quote above if you could come up with a single creationist writer who displays the wit, humour, elegant phrasing, breadth of intellect, graciousness, scholarship and sheer humanity of Gould.

And now I am ready to answer the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

I pondered this and I realised that many evolutionists / atheists seem to think the same, in that they are completely unbiased with no prejudice of any kind. I am wondering on what basis can this belief be maintained, since its very basic understanding which comprehends that ALL people have their own personal bias and presuppositions. To have no bias is to claim one must be infallible which is impossible, this then leads to the incredulity of the claims that an evolutionist / atheist has no bias towards their own worldview.

I think this comes down to asking why many evolutionists/atheists are arrogant and intolerant of other views.

The answer is clearly that these are human traits. They are actually the very traits that got Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden of Eden. Arrogance and intolerance are certainly not restricted to evolutionists or atheists (as explained earlier these are two entirely different groups). And in all sincerity, I think the world would be a very boring place if we didn't have idealogues like Calypsis4 and Richard Dawkins, or Duane Gish. In would be nice if they could express themselves less rudely and intolerantly or with the elegance and humility of Gould - but thats who they are.

When JB Haldane was asked what would disprove evolution - he responded "Rabbits in the pre-cambrian". No such anomolous fossils have ever been found. Attempts to disprove this such as John Woodmaropes list of 200 anomolous fossils are pathetic. You only have to look at a complex coal mine, such as Mt Owen in the Hunter Valley with its 37 complex seams to realise that Creationist attempts to cram geology into 6000 years of creation are very amateur.

Most creationists and evolutionists are biased and arrogant. And you are right about it being human nature, I appreciate your mature responses and hope you get the same in return. I am someone who likes pure logic, and find that whenever I have debated with an evolutionist and am aware that I am making good points, they appear civil for a few posts until they feel they are losing ground. Then standard human nature, (insults and the stubborn inability to admit a point) rears its ugly head.

There are other creationist explanations for the fossil record than the standard "the flood did it all" approach. This however would not be relevant to this thread, but you are welcome to message me to find out more. Bunnies in the pre-cambrian? Not required. Bunnies in the Carboniferous? Well they wouldn't be found in coal-producing swamps surely? They are never found in those swamps where there are thousands of dominant carnivorous amphibians around, then or today. You would have to look elsewhere to find them.

Most creationists and evolutionists are biased and arrogant. And you are right about it being human nature, I appreciate your mature responses and hope you get the same in return. I am someone who likes pure logic, and find that whenever I have debated with an evolutionist and am aware that I am making good points, they appear civil for a few posts until they feel they are losing ground. Then standard human nature, (insults and the stubborn inability to admit a point) rears its ugly head.

I totally agree with you about bias on both sides. Unfortunately the issue of being "righ t" becomes more importanr rhan civility.That's what I don't like about evo--survival of the fittest (fit). The evo headset of there having to be a winner is unfortunately embraced by many creationist as well as evo's.